Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32039359›Full record

ReviewJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2019

Comparison of the current international guidelines on the management of HCC.

Friedrich Foerster, Peter Robert Galle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Fat, cancer, the gut-liver axis and rare liver diseases.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Friedrich FoersterDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.
Peter Robert GalleDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become ever more demanding. To evaluate the available evidence and to give clinicians the best guidance, all major hepatology societies have developed guidelines for HCC. Recently, updated versions have been published by the American, the Asian Pacific, and the European societies. This article presents a comparison of these three guidelines summarising both common ground and differences. Moreover, it highlights areas of ongoing research which will make yet another round of updates of the guidelines necessary in the near future.

Indexed as

cirrhosisdiagnosisguidelinesHepatocellular carcinomaliver transplantresectionsystemictreatment

Identifiers

PMID32039359
PMCPMC7001540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.